Immediate Chest Wall Reconstruction After Oncoplastic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In this paper, we report our experience in the resection and immediate reconstruction of chest wall tumors, using oncoplastic surgery criteria. Methods: This is a prospective study including 27 patients with malignant tumors of the chest wall (primary and metastatic) who underwent oncoplastic surgery with curative intent. Results: In 15 cases, it was a sternal defect and in 12, the ribs were involved. Immediate closure, in collaboration with teams of plastic surgeons, was conducted with different prostheses to provide wall stability and then be able to cover the defect with musculocutaneous flaps at different levels, depending on the need. Conclusions: Extended resection of the chest wall is the best treatment for most tumors affecting this region. Reconstruction with mesh and musculocutaneous flap is an effective technique for repairing such defects, although not without morbidity. J Curr Surg. 2015;5(1):133-136 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs262w
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".